I'm pleased for the chance to appeal my beliefs and wish you an enlightening and impartial debate. In this debate, I'll be referring to Communism as detailed in the Center for European Studies " Communism is a political ideology and type of government in which the state owns the major resources in a society, including property, means of production, education, agriculture and transportation." However, Marx heavily emphasized the equality of the poorer class with the Upper Class. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx describes how the Bourgeoisie (Upper Class) have converted every occupation into a form of paid labor, where the worker is disconnected from their work. Here lies the 1st problem with a free market system, there are no checks on what a Corporation or Private Actor can do and production suffers for it. A good example of this is the Milton Hershey Corporation. Hershey had been enslaving children in West Africa and forcing them to pick cocoa beans to make their chocolate. In a free market system, the only goal is to make as much money as possible, therefore such conduct is not only allowed, but encouraged. The workers mean nothing in a Free Market system, as they can easily be replaced should they ask for more than they've been given. Under such a system, productivity decreases as well, as the worker is disconnected from the fruits of their labor. Under a communist system, money is a non-issue, therefore people can pursue the occupation of their choice, increasing productivity in the process.
In communism, all property (Apartments, Houses, Means of Production, etc.) is controlled by the Government. Because of the lack of currency, the people don't have to pay for a place to live, or food to eat, unlike our system where the homeless have to rely on handouts from passers-by to stay fed and warm.
On the topic of Morality, it's rather difficult to remain moral in a system where profit is cheered, and the human cost is pushed aside like it doesn't matter and slavery is cheered. Even if you assume that slavery can't exist in a free market, the entire premise of a free market relies on the accumulation of currency, therefore it's a choice between taking whatever your employer wants you to have or starving/freezing to death from a lack of wealth.

A FREE MARKET VS A FREE-FOR-ALL MARKETMy opponent states:"Here lies the 1st problem with a free market system, there are no checks on what a Corporation or Private Actor can do and production suffers for it. A good example of this is the Milton Hershey Corporation. Hershey had been enslaving children in West Africa and forcing them to pick cocoa beans to make their chocolate. In a free market system, the only goal is to make as much money as possible, therefore such conduct is not only allowed, but encouraged. The workers mean nothing in a Free Market system, as they can easily be replaced should they ask for more than they've been given. Under such a system, productivity decreases as well, as the worker is disconnected from the fruits of their labor. Under a communist system, money is a non-issue, therefore people can pursue the occupation of their choice, increasing productivity in the process."I don't know if Milton Hershey really did that since my opponent cites no source, but regardless, I do know that John D Rockefeller slaughtered his workers in what is called the Ludlow Massacre, so let's just go with that. First of all capitalism itself does not remove someone from their labor, but rather the exact opposite, by allowing them to work and benefit from what they produce, late 19th Century Croney Capitalism may have done this as workers became nothing more than factory tools, but Free Market capitalism would allow these individuels to work from home or start their own buisness if they want too. What we had in the late 19th Century is actually called monopolism, if there had been a Free Market, and oil-drilling workers had multiple choices as to which oil company they worked for, do you believe that they would chose to work for John D Rockefeller? They only did because they had to or they'd starve.

He then states:"it's rather difficult to remain moral in a system where profit is cheered, and the human cost is pushed aside like it doesn't matter and slavery is cheered. Even if you assume that slavery can't exist in a free market, the entire premise of a free market relies on the accumulation of currency, therefore it's a choice between taking whatever your employer wants you to have or starving/freezing to death from a lack of wealth."You assume that people having property rights, and the ability to pursue any trade they wish automatically creates croney capitalism and exploitation. Profits are "cheered" in a Free Market system because people are greedy, and will pursue wealth, and there's nothing wrong with working an honest trade and earning an honest living, this is just the entire element of Capitaism.

Really Communism relies on the idea that prvate individuels cannot help but exploit each other, therefor the goveronment needs to usurp their property and run their lives, everyones lives. This is why we enforced the minimum wage, because the goveronment thought that private individuels couldn't help but pay their employees a starvation wage, thus the goveronment is much better at determining morality than individuels (even though during the 20th Century individuels killed 8.5 million and the state killed 262 million), {1} thus, we enacted a 0.25$ minimum wage (that was worth a lot more in 1944 than it is today). This idea simply does not hold up to fact, Switzerland has no minimum wage and their average wages are 6,750$ monthly! {2} Compare that to a Socialist Country like China, Venezuela, or the United States.

I don't know if Milton Hershey really did that since my opponent cites no source.
My opponent is clearly wrong here, as I cited the dailybeast in the second line. Even if you disregard this source, fortune.com has the same information. Therefore, you must take this piece of evidence. P.S. All evidence will be at the bottom.
My opponent also says that this system was Monopolism, however, Free Market is defined as " an economy operating by free competition". Therefore, in a free market, where the government cannot regulate the market, this "Croney Capitalism" would be everywhere, as the primary goal of companies is to make money, regardless of what the people must suffer to do it. The moment the government steps in to tell the companies what to do, it is no longer a free market. Therefore my opponent has contradicted the definition of a Free Market with the sentence "This is why we enforced the minimum wage, because the government thought that private individuals couldn't help but pay their employees a starvation wage, thus the government is much better at determining morality than individuals (even though during the 20th Century individuals killed 8.5 million and the state killed 262 million), " and has therefore affirmed a government run system over the Free Market.
My opponent mentions working from home, but you need money to be able to do that. Making a company isn't much better, as you inevitably become a part of the Free Market, doing whatever it takes to turn a profit.
My opponent also says that Communism wishes for the government to control everything because private individuals won't help others. While this is true for some individuals, the majority of people default to a collectivist society, where people help each other. In addition, working together makes for quicker work and the production of more.
My opponent posits that the Free Market System gets workers closer to the fruits of their labor, however, this could not be further from the truth. If the work one does is not enjoyable, then why would the product of that labor be worth something. By removing currency, as a communist system wishes to do, people could be free to pursue the occupation of their choice, and increasing productivity. In addition, in a Free Market Economy, a worker might work $0.25-$7 an hour to make a Laptop, however, the worker would be unable to purchase such a device, thus alienating them from the product of their labor, and isolating them from the enjoyment obtained from such a device.

This is a bit confusing since my opponent just posted my wrdsthen commented on them without using italics, quotations, or even spaces to distinguish the text!

THE GOVERONMENT IN A FREE MARKETMy opponent makes the mistake of thinking that once the goveronment gets involved in the market it is no longer free, but this is not the case. Enable for the market to be free to compete, there only needs to be:a). property rightsb). more than one company producing agiven commodityc). the decentralisation of power amongst these companiesThe goveronment has one purpose and one purpose only- to preserve the liberties of the people, so if some corporation poisons the water supply, it should be illegal for them to do that, just as if I took a dump in the local reservoir I would be arrrested. Ulitimatey the goveronments job should be to prevent companies from exploiting people in a way that violates their liberties.

Then he misinterprets my words by saying:"'This is why we enforced the minimum wage, because the government thought that private individuals couldn't help but pay their employees a starvation wage, thus the government is much better at determining morality than individuals (even though during the 20th Century individuals killed 8.5 million and the state killed 262 million),' and has therefore affirmed a government run system over the Free Market."I was representing this idea of yours, not saying it was true- the goveronment is not any more capable of determining morality than you or me, and it certainly isn't more capale of protecting the environment than the private sector as the liberals and communists would have us believe. Like I said before, the state is actually amongst the most immoral forms of institutions ever- during the 20th Century it killed 262 million as opposed to a mere 8.5 million by individuels, this is a clear indication that the state is actually morally impaired. And as to environmental protections, the goveronment has actually been among the largest pollutors in the world, the EPA recently dumped toxic waste into a river, and Bernie Sanders authorsed abill to dump toxic waste onto a low income community near the Mexican border. {2}

So yes- we need more and stricter regulations on the goveronment and on the politicians, because they do not know what they are doing.

REGARDING SELF EMPLOYMENT"My opponent mentions working from home, but you need money to be able to do that. Making a company isn't much better, as you inevitably become a part of the Free Market, doing whatever it takes to turn a profit."First of all, it will always take capitol to practice a trade, it's just that in capitalism we use "money" as a medium of exchange to represent this capitol. So really no matter what it takes those same recources to work from home, we just call it "money," but really you need physcal, tangible, resources, not money- and this isn't going to change if we switch to communism. Second of all, being part of the free market isn't bad, and being able to earn a profit (since this is a liberty granted to man by their creator), does not turn you into some greedy sociopath who 'does anything he needs to to turn a profit.'

PEOPLE PREFER COLLECTIVISM?My opponent states that people will automatically default to a collective society, but this just isn't the case, and for the same reason that most of toddlers first or second word will be "mine." People are greedy, and will pursue wealth, and there's nothing wrong with that- IF it is done in an honest and respectable way by offering a quality good or service to the markets.

THE PRODUCT OF LABORLet's put it this way- in communism all of the profits of your work go to the welfare state and to the goveronment, whereas in capitalism it all belongs to you, save if you work for someone elsae in which case a small portion of it goes to some capitalist who makes money off of increasing the productive powers of labor and bettering the quality of living of the nation overall- what a terrible person he is.

He also mistakes globalism for capitalism:"By removing currency, as a communist system wishes to do, people could be free to pursue the occupation of their choice, and increasing productivity. In addition, in a Free Market Economy, a worker might work $0.25-$7 an hour to make a Laptop, however, the worker would be unable to purchase such a device, thus alienating them from the product of their labor, and isolating them from the enjoyment obtained from such a device."This can be solved by ending the outsourcing of jobs to foreign nations and charging corporations a tarrif of 35% if they produce their goods overseas. In this way corporations will be forced to compete for a limited number f resourcesand consumers, and thus would restore the free market. Now, globalism can co-exist with capitalism, capitalism itself doesn't abolish globalism, but capitalism isn't the cause of this issue, that's globalism. The state can just as easily exportjobs to foreigners in China or South Africa in a communist society. So capitalism cannot be blamed for this, you must blame globalism.

CONCLUSIONThe difference between Free Market Capitalism and Communism is that, in capitalism, an individuel is allowed to work for himself and own property, whilst in communism this is left to the state. Thus, the notion of communism relies on the fallacy that the state is somehow more morally inclined than the individuel, or more responsible than the individuel, or that individuels are incapable of caring for themselves and thus the goveronment needs to govern their lives.

"I believe that in every country the people themselves are more peacibly and liberally inclined than their governments." - Franklin Roosevelt"Any man that thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer lookat the Native American." - Henry Ford"No one spends someone elses money as responsibly as he spends his own." - Milton Friedman

"
"'This is why we enforced the minimum wage, because the government thought that private individuals couldn't help but pay their employees a starvation wage, thus the government is much better at determining morality than individuals

From <http://www.debate.org...;
"
This component of your Statement supports the idea that the Government is more capable of defining morality, therefore affirming that Communism is the superior system.

"
it certainly isn't more capale of protecting the environment than the private sector as the liberals and communists would have us believe."

"
This is blatantly false and you actually acknowledge that the Government should regulate Enivironment.

"The goveronment has one purpose and one purpose only- to preserve the liberties of the people, so if some corporation poisons the water supply, it should be illegal for them to do that, just as if I took a dump in the local reservoir I would be arrrested."

From <http://www.debate.org...;
"
"
And as to environmental protections, the goveronment has actually been among the largest pollutors in the world, the EPA recently dumped toxic waste into a river, and Bernie Sanders authorsed abill to dump toxic waste onto a low income community near the Mexican border. {2}

From <http://www.debate.org...;
"
Maybe the American Government, largely controlled by Conservatives, but True Democrats (Not Corporate Shills like Hillary) have been in favor of incentives for Clean Energy and reducing the amount of waste that is dumped into the water, and pumped into the air. On Bernie, you seem to disregard the idea of Political Evolution. Evolution is defined as "
c"(1)":" a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state"

From <http://www.merriam-webster.com...;
" Therefore, Political Evolution is this, but for Political Beliefs or Policy.
Bernie is actually in favor of protecting important watersheds, wildlife areas and is an advocate of protecting Ocean, coastal and Lake ecosystems {6}.

"
we use "money" as a medium of exchange to represent this capitol. So really no matter what it takes those same recources to work from home, we just call it "money," but really you need physcal, tangible, resources, not money- and this isn't going to change if we switch to communism."

From <http://www.brainyquote.com...;
"
This quote implies that each person should have what they need to survive, however in a Capitalist Society, if government doesn't regulate prices, we have incidents of price-gouging, such as Martin Shkreli who raised the price of an AIDS drug from $13.50 per tablet to $750 per tablet {2}, or Catalyst a pharmaceutical company who charged $60,000 to $100,000 dollars for a drug which cures Neuromuscular disorders, such as Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome {1} or Valeant who raise the price of a 24 pack of Ofirmev Vials by 250% to $1,019.52 along with a slew of other drugs {3}, or Questcor who jacked the price up from $50 to $28,000 per 5 millimeter vial of Anti-Inflammatory Medication {4} or companies who gouged the epi-pen, raising it's price from $80 to $500 and the co-pay from $45 to $200 {5}. Healthcare is also an issue in the Free Market, as most bankruptcies in the US are from Healthcare costs, even with insurance. The point is, that the Free Market can't stop these companies, because any attempt to regulate price or otherwise try to stop them immediately destroys the Free Market. If the choice is between a Society where Price-Gougers can get away with taking advantage of vulnerable individuals or a Society where the Government has control over such resources, and delegates them according to who needs them, one should prefer the latter over the former, for reason of practicality and humanitarian interest. In reference to the idea that Communism hurts people, we have never had a Marxist Communist System. We've only ever had Leninist Communist Systems. Therefore, the notion that Marxist Communism will have the same problem is unfounded in fact.

In Communism, people get what they require to practice their trade, without having got pay, because people share things, rather than taking money in exchange for those materials. Therefore, all people have the opportunity to practice a trade, increasing overall productivity.

People will prefer Collectivism in the event of a Disaster or other event which damages the output of a Community, because they're smart. They recognize that a group can produce more than any 1 individual, and in the event of a Disaster people are unlikely to have much spare cash, therefore sharing is the next best thing

My opponent seems to disregard the definition of Globalism "
a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper sphere for political influence

From <http://www.merriam-webster.com...;
"
And capitalism "
an economic system characterized by"private"or corporate ownership of"capital"goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a"free market

From <http://www.merriam-webster.com...;
"
Allowing the abolition of Globalism, work would shift to America, I presume my opponent will accept this conclusion
Under a Free Market System, a Laptop Builder in America might make $7 and hour and once he finished the Laptop, he wouldn't have the funds necessary to purchase the object he created, therefore the worker is still alienated from the fruits of his labor.

The difference between Capitalism and Communism is that in Capitalism, you work for yourself and your own property. In Communism, you work for the State, and the state gives the product out to whoever needs it. Therefore, you should prefer Communism, because the fruits of your labor benefit more than 1 person in a direct manner.

MISQUOTATIONSAgain, my opponent misinterpreted my words, I said that we enforced a minimum wage because the goveronment thought that individuels cannot help but to exploit eachother. But to say that this is true is demonstrably false, Switzerland, for example, has no minimum wage and yet their average earnings are 6,300$ a month! {1} These are the highest wages in the world, so clearly individuels are capable of not exploiting others.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONSLike I sad before, the government is the largest pollutor in the world, the EPA even dumped toxic waste into a river! I would also like to inform my opponent that Barrack Obama and NOT some Republican is currently in charge of our nation, so no- he cannot just blame it on the conservatives. He also failed to address how Bernie Sanders authorised toxic waste to be dumped onto the Mexican border, which not only pollutes the environment but also violates a treaty we had with them.

MORE FACT CHECKINGMy opponent states:"This quote implies that each person should have what they need to survive, however in a Capitalist Society, if government doesn't regulate prices, we have incidents of price-gouging, such as Martin Shkreli who raised the price of an AIDS drug from $13.50 per tablet to $750 per tablet."If the goveronment doesn't regulate prices there will be price gouging? In a Free Market there is competition. So Martin can raise the price of his drug to 750$ since it is his drug, but if we assume that this is happening in a Free Market then a competitor would simply sell that same drug at let's say 15$ and run Martin out of buisness unless he lowers his prices below that of his competitors. This does not require regulation, the Free market will automatically lower prices over a given period of time provided you have a free market. So when Martin was price gouging, a correct route to take would be to abolish goveronment protection over his patent.

This would imply less goveronment interference rather than more, so the lassiez faire aspect is maintained and even strengthened. As a result, some greedy capitalist begins to produce that same drug at a lower cost and does exactly what I said- runs Martin out of buisness unless he lowers his prices. So as you can see, Martins price gouging was actualy enabled by goveronment interference, Milton Friedman said:"I know of only 2 monopolies which mantained their power without interference by the goveronment [to protect them.]"

ALIENATION FROM THE PRODUCT OF LABORMy opponent states:"Allowing the abolition of Globalism, work would shift to America, I presume my opponent will accept this conclusion. Under a Free Market System, a Laptop Builder in America might make $7 and hour and once he finished the Laptop, he wouldn't have the funds necessary to purchase the object he created, therefore the worker is still alienated from the fruits of his labor."Not so, if all these jobs were sent over to the US this would increase the demand for labor and therefor inflate wages, since we have an unemployment rate of 30%, I estimate that wages will go up according to the demand of labor, which will be 3/7 the current demand, or a minimum ~43% increase in wages. This is because the less unemployed there are the less expendable workers are, thus this rate should go up by about 50% what is is, so in all wages should increase by 64.5% what they are now, which assuming the minimum wage is 7.25$ (the Federal Minimum wage, most states went above this), wages in minimum wage states should increase to 11.91$, but to 16.45$ in places like California, and 24.68$ in New York.

My opponent claims that people are less prone to exploit others and uses the example of Switzerland.
"
Switzerland, for example, has no minimum wage and yet their average earnings are 6,300$ a month! {1} These are the highest wages in the world, so clearly individuels are capable of not exploiting others."

From <http://www.debate.org...;
"
However, the European Countries tend to score lower in Individualism, therefore preferring a stronger government {1}. Pew Research says "
Americans tend to prioritize individual liberty, while Europeans tend to value the role of the state to ensure no one in society is in need.

From <http://www.pewresearch.org...;
"
My opponent is correct that the EPA did dump waste, however, the dump was unintentional {2}.
"
In an event that has led to health warnings and turned a river orange, the Environmental Protection Agency says one of its safety teams accidentally released contaminated water from a mine into the Animas River in southwest Colorado.

From <http://www.npr.org...;
"
If this is the incorrect spill, then I would request my opponent cite a source, as it would be unfair if I weren't provided the opportunity to refute him.
He then cites the fact that Obama is currently in charge of our Nation, despite the idea of Checks and Balances, which clearly shows that the president isn't as important as we believe, and actually the House and Senate are more important for these types of decisions. In the current system, republicans hold control over the senate {3}, and the House {4}
"
He also failed to address how Bernie Sanders authorised toxic waste to be dumped onto the Mexican border

From <http://www.debate.org...;
"
I'll concede to my opponent on this point. He seems adamant however, that Political Evolution isn't a thing, when in fact it has been documented time and time again. Even if you disregard the idea of Political Evolution, Sanders positions can be tied to donations from wealthy individuals {5}. Therefore the Free Market enable Corporations to sink their grip into the Government, allowing the Corporations to get away with anything they wish.
"
So Martin can raise the price of his drug to 750$ since it is his drug, but if we assume that this is happening in a Free Market then a competitor would simply sell that same drug at let's say 15$ and run Martin out of buisness unless he lowers his prices below that of his competitors."

From <http://www.debate.org...;
"
This would be correct if we do away with Property rights. Turing, the company that Shkreli owns bought the rights to Daraprim. This means that no one can create the drug without Martin's permission. Seeing as no one can create the drug, it means that Shkreli can keep prices as high as he wants, without worry about competition. The only way to stop this is to get rid of property rights, which destroys the free market. Therefore, you should prefer the system which allows the drug to be handed out whenever it's needed, rather than the system that allows people to force their consumer to overpay for something which could literally save a life.
"
So when Martin was price gouging, a correct route to take would be to abolish goveronment protection over his patent."

From <http://www.debate.org...;
"
This quote directly contradicts one of the primary components of a Free Market.
"
a). property rights

From <http://www.debate.org...;
"
I'll grant another component is "
b). more than one company producing agiven commodity

From <http://www.debate.org...;
"
However, what happens when these 2 goals contradict. Martin bought the rights to Daraprim, so it's his property, but to attain component b, you would need to deny his ownership of that property, which is in direct contradiction with component a. Therefore, you should prefer the Communist system where the people within the Government are equal with the people outside government and resources are shared rather than exploited.

My opponent then says "
"the less unemployed there are the less expendable workers are

From <http://www.debate.org...;
"
This double negative is a bit confusing at first, but it basically means "The more people who are employed, the more expendable workers are, which is correct. The more people you have working in a field, the more expendable they are. Therefore, wages would stay the same or stagnate, because your employing more people {6}.

WAGESActually, Switzerland is a very individualistic nation, that's why tey have the most pro-gun laws in the world. Besides, if individuals can, without goveronment interference, pay their workers a good wage,then we have no need for a state to establish a minimum wage. Fact is the goveronment doesn't force employers to pay their workers acertain sum, so your argument of collectivism is complete nonsense.

My opponent then states:"This double negative is a bit confusing at first, but it basically means "The more people who are employed, the more expendable workers are, which is correct. The more people you have working in a field, the more expendable they are. Therefore, wages would stay the same or stagnate, because your employing more people."No, I said that the less unemployed there ae, the less expendable workers are, which means that the more unemployed there are, the more expendable workers are, ad the more employed there are, the less expendable they are.

For example, if you had 5 employees, and there was no one else inthe world for you to hire, these guys wouldn't be very expendable, but if you had 5 employees and there were 7 billion unemployed people, thenyou could replace these workers at any time. Adam Smith States:"There are certain circumstances, however, which sometimes give the labourers an advantage, and enable them to raise their wages considerably above this rate; evidently the lowest which is consistent with common humanity. When in any country the demand for those who live by wages, labourers, journeymen, servants of every kind, is continually increasing; when every year furnishes employment for a greater number than had been employed the year before, the workmen have no occasion to combine in order to raise their wages. The scarcity of hands occasions a competition among masters, who bid against one another, in order to get workmen, and thus voluntarily break through the natural combination of masters not to raise wages." - The Wealth of Nations, Book 1 Chapter 8

EPARight, no one said they intentonally dumped toxins into a river, no corporation makes mooney off of poisoning people. They make money off of things like fracking and don't care when it poisons the water supply. The free market didn't allow corporations to 'sink their grip into the goveronment, allowing corporations to get away with anything they wish,' that was our corrupted legal system.

MONOPOLIESYou can't own the rights to daraprim since that isn't a thing. You may be able to own some daraprim, but you cannot own daraprim itself without owning every last drop of it. It's like if I got a patent on wood, I maye able to own a certain ammount of wood, but not wood itself. Martin's 'property rights,' are in actuality just a goveronment mandate, on ccount of Martin paying them, that no one can enter this market he created. It's nothing more than a goveronment chartered monopoly, there's nothing whith which to own about it! It's illegal as per the Sherman Anti-trust Act, so the goveronment had no right to "sell" Martin the rights to daraprim in the first place. It's like if I sold you the brooklyn bridge then you expect everyone to respect your property rights, it's not yours since I had no right to sell it to you.

Before I begin, I'd like to thank my opponent for this opportunity to demonstrate the benefits of a communist system, and applaud him for his ability to stick by his beliefs.
Individualism
That being said, he uses Switzerland as an example of Individualism, however in the context of America, they are more collectivist.
However, what really kills this argument is that Communism doesn't necessarily have to kill individual rights. In fact, I'd argue that Communism increases individual rights
Oscar Wilde's The Soul of Man under Socialism """It is immoral to use private property in order to alleviate the horrible evils that result from the institution of private property. It is both immoral and unfair.

Under Socialism all this will, of course, be altered. There will be no people living in fetid dens and fetid rags, and bringing up unhealthy, hunger-pinched children in the midst of impossible and absolutely repulsive surroundings. The security of society will not depend, as it does now, on the state of the weather. If a frost comes we shall not have a hundred thousand men out of work, tramping about the streets in a state of disgusting misery, or whining to their neighbours for alms, or crowding round the doors of loathsome shelters to try and secure a hunch of bread and a night"s unclean lodging. Each member of the society will share in the general prosperity and happiness of the society, and if a frost comes no one will practically be anything the worse.

Upon the other hand, Socialism itself will be of value simply because it will lead to Individualism.

Socialism, Communism, or whatever one chooses to call it, by converting private property into public wealth, and substituting co-operation for competition, will restore society to its proper condition of a thoroughly healthy organism, and insure the material well-being of each member of the community. It will, in fact, give Life its proper basis and its proper environment. But for the full development of Life to its highest mode of perfection, something more is needed. What is needed is Individualism. If the Socialism is Authoritarian; if there are Governments armed with economic power as they are now with political power; if, in a word, we are to have Industrial Tyrannies, then the last state of man will be worse than the first. At present, in consequence of the existence of private property, a great many people are enabled to develop a certain very limited amount of Individualism. They are either under no necessity to work for their living, or are enabled to choose the sphere of activity that is really congenial to them, and gives them pleasure. These are the poets, the philosophers, the men of science, the men of culture " in a word, the real men, the men who have realised themselves, and in whom all Humanity gains a partial realisation. Upon the other hand, there are a great many people who, having no private property of their own, and being always on the brink of sheer starvation, are compelled to do the work of beasts of burden, to do work that is quite uncongenial to them, and to which they are forced by the peremptory, unreasonable, degrading Tyranny of want. These are the poor, and amongst them there is no grace of manner, or charm of speech, or civilisation, or culture, or refinement in pleasures, or joy of life. From their collective force Humanity gains much in material prosperity. But it is only the material result that it gains, and the man who is poor is in himself absolutely of no importance. He is merely the infinitesimal atom of a force that, so far from regarding him, crushes him: indeed, prefers him crushed, as in that case he is far more obedient."""
It basically says that Capitalism forces one to prostitute one's labor, in order to receive of that which one needs to live. I understand one might disregard this because it says Socialism, however I point you to the 1st sentence of the Final paragraph """Socialism, Communism, or whatever one chooses to call it"""
Marx also wrote about this in his book The German Ideology """For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic."""{2}
Additionally, in a Study by Pew Charitable Trust, 70% of all people who are born into the lowest bracket of income, will never move up a bracket. {3} Therefore, the very idea of Capitalism is flawed, in that not everyone has an equal chance to succeed.
Employment
I'll concede, you do have a choice between employers, but it is tantamount to a slave choosing which plantation. You still need Money to survive, and without it, you will eventually starve, freeze or die from disease, none of which would happen in a Communist Society as resources are shared equally.
Environment
On the subject of the Environment, Governments are clearly better for regulating than Corporations. Corporations are logical entities. If the Government doesn't say they can't dump toxins into the river, they will save money by dumping toxins into the River. In addition, companies won't advertise that they pollute, therefore the argument that pollution doesn't get business is true, but for the incorrect reason. My opponent also says "
no corporation makes mooney off of poisoning people." However this is incorrect. Corporations save much money if they don't have to transport the waste they produce, don't have to store it in specific containers and don't have to find a proper location to safely dispose of the waste. He also says "
They make money off of things like fracking and don't care when it poisons the water supply.""
This is partly true, however it can be tied to corporate donations and filibustering Politicians. "
Conservative politicians love to talk about how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) only issues "job-killing regulations," especially if they're taking campaign contributions from fossil fuel billionaires like the Koch brothers or from agrochemical giants like Monsanto.
Republican Chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee Lamar Smith, for example, has spent years trying to stop the EPA from conducting any real research about climate change or passing any real regulations in general.""{4}
In such cases, a sufficient response is simply to dissolve the concept of Corporations. Thereby, destroying their influence in the government. Then, if a government wants clean energy or clean disposal of waste, they get it.
Therefore, Government is better for regulation the Environmental Activities of Corporations.
Automation
Another point my opponent failed to answer for is the automation of jobs. Under a Capitalist system, companies are incentivized to automate jobs, therefore running people out of their jobs. Granted, under a Communist system, automation would occur. However, as money isn't a thing in true communism, people could be Writers, Actors, Musicians, Photographers or code programming in their spare time. Scientists would also be more in demand, as the Government would be interested in increasing the productivity of these machines. However, in the capitalist system, you take the only jobs these people are qualified for, and send them home without a source of income. According to The Atlantic; automation would cut 50% of all middle-class jobs. {5}
This, in our society, is essentially a death sentence, as people starve, freeze or die of disease.
Failed to Refute
Notice my opponent also failed to refute my point that Communism benefits more people than Capitalism does, thereby reducing this "Class Inequality" as redistribution of Wealth is wont to do.